Visit the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forum Archives!

Sponsored by:

U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum  

Bookmark Us! E-Mail DONATE NOW! Photo Gallery Document Archives Quiz! Register to Vote!!!
Go Back   U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum > Issue Politics > Environmental Issues

Environmental Issues Environment, Global Warming, Pollution, Natural Resources, Alternative Energy

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
Si modo's Avatar
Si modo Si modo is offline
In a Garden of Eden
Buckeye by birth; Boilermaker by choice

 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,196
Blog Entries: 1

United_States    
Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by daisym View Post
Here is a link to Climate Change Research Explorer - the NSF appear to be the sponsors for this:

Global Climate Change: Research Explorer- The Exploratorium

on page 1 of the overview they state:



It would seem that to the NSF, the debate is over.
Then you have no comprehension of what the NSF is all about. They don't "debate" science, they sponsor scientific investigation of valid scientific questions.
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
JHC's Avatar
JHC JHC is offline
President
a cold, cold woman... and junebug sympathizer

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Florida US
Posts: 10,538

United_States     Wyoming

Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Breaking the Iron Test Tube: Peer Review and the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDr. Peer Reviewed Grants A Steadily Growing Proportion of Total Scientific Funding

Peer review by funding organizations such as the National Science Foundation of China over the past decade has improved the effectiveness of science funding and raised the quality of Chinese science. The NNSFC now funds 16 percent of the 20,000 grant applications it receives each year from its annual budget of RMB 800 million (USD 100 million) which has increased nearly 20 percent annually since the founding of the NNSFC ten years ago. NNSFC now awards more research grants on a competitive basic than does the Ministry of Science and Technology which awards RMB 500 million annually. NNSFC grants often serve as seed money attesting to the quality of a project. Local government money often follows thereafter. The Chinese leadership set the goal of total (central and local government) Chinese spending on basic and applied research to reach 1.5 percent of GDP by the year 2000. NNSFC spending is a small but growing fraction of that amount. The NNSFC website (in Chinese) is at ¹ú¼Ò×ÔÈ»¿ÆÑ§»ù½ðίԱ»á-NSFC
...
Gerald Keusch, Associate Director for International Cooperation of the National Institutes of Health, sketched the role of the National Institutes of Health and the Fogarty Center. The NIH (National Institutes of Health (NIH) - Home Page) is the largest source of peer-reviewed grants in the United States. Global Change

Global change research projects include the carbon cycle in ice zones of Antarctica; the relationship between elevation of carbon dioxide concentrations in atmosphere and aquatic organisms, and the effect of sulphocompounds in China on global change. The global change program is linked to four international programs on global change: the International Geosphere and Biosphere Program (IGBP), the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), the Human Dimensions Program for Global Change (HDP/GC) and DIVERSITAS.

The National Institutes of Health/Fogarty Center and International Cooperation
Current spending levels are USD one billion for research on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland and ten billion dollars for grants to researchers throughout the United States. The Fogarty Center spends USD 200 million annually on international cooperation and hopes to spend substantially more in this area in the future. Dr. Varmus, the NIH Director, has said that the U.S. should share its capabilities and knowledge.
Quote:
Science MagWhat's Wrong With NIH Peer Review?
Among the more than 700 responses to the proposed reorganization of NIH's peer-review system can be found virtually every complaint researchers have ever made about study-section reviews. Science offers a sampling.

Read the Full Text
Quote:
Gilbert Ling, PHD, Chinese scientistScience, the priceless heritage from the West, has made many human lives longer, richer and happier. Yet, as it stands today, Science can at best ameliorate but it cannot cure cancer, AIDS and other deadly diseases. The reason is simple. Research at the most fundamental cell-physiology level has been misguided from the start. Efforts to steer the cell-physiology research to a validated new direction met first with enthusiasm and some criticisms---in time all answered. Then criticisms gave way to contentious acts of less and less honorable kind. The assault nearly annihilated the reformers, but not before the new approach had given rise to what some believe to be the medical technological breakthrough of the century: MRI. This document shows how the pervasive peer review system---which decides on everything--- has drastically suppressed research and progress in cell-physiology and why if the stranglehold of repressive practices in this basic science is not broken, Mankind may lose the chance of curing cancer and AIDS in the foreseeable future, and of reaping the even greater rewards ---including possibly Mankind's own survival---from understanding the (only) remaining major domain of relevant basic science. Paradoxically, this crisis also offers an unprecedented opportunity for renewal. That is, if through your help and the support of one or more philanthropists--- to resume what other philanthropists of the past have once accomplished so magnificently for American medicine and for basic scientific research---, enthusiasm, integrity and legitimate cell physiology will be restored to their rightful places and a victory-bound War on Cancer, AIDS and all other dreaded diseases launched forth to the lasting gratitude of all humanity. Gilbert N. Ling, Ph.D.


The peer review systems adopted for government-sponsored research funding can be roughly sorted out into two types. One type was first adopted by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the National Science Foundation (NSF); the other type was that introduced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
1.The ONR-NSF system

This system places greater responsibility on the individual program managers. A researcher seeking support writes a proposal describing what he/she plans to do and submits it along with the endorsement from the Institution where he/she is employed. The specific program manager covering that field reads the proposal and sends it out to different experts in the field and seeks their opinions. Based on the opinions gathered, the program manager makes the final decision to fund the proposal or to reject it. The good side of this system is that it has flexibility. When the program manager is dedicated and has the needed knowledge, courage and integrity, the system can work well.

The down side of the ONR-NSF system is that if the program manager does not have enough knowledge and self confidence, and/or cares little about the true objective of scientific research, he/she can do a great deal of damage to Science.

Thus in the words of Representative John B. Conlan from Arizona: " ( the system can turn into) an 'Old Boy's System' where program managers rely on trusted friends in the academic community to review their proposals. These friends recommend their friends as reviewers....It is an incestuous buddy system that frequently stifles new ideas and scientific breakthroughs, while carving up the multimillion dollar Federal research and education pie in a monopoly game of grantsmanship..." (from Testimonial on July 22, 1975, as a member of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, First Session. Quoted from "National Science Foundation Peer Review, Special Oversight Hearings., Publication No. 32, p. 5; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.).
2.The NIH system.

NIH is a much larger conglomerate of semi-independent Institutions (e.g., National Cancer Institute, National Heart Institute). Each has its own research laboratories and researchers, constituting what is called "intramural activities". It is the "extramural activity" that oversees funding of research conducted by researchers outside NIH, often in the Universities. This funding is handled by a single NIH institution called the Division of Research Grants. Although there is a second level of peer review by a national advisory council made up by scientists and laymen, the major decision on the funding of research proposal is made by scientists sitting on the Initial Review Groups (IRG) also called Study Sessions. As of 1993, there were a total of 84 study sessions belonging to 16 NIH Institutes.

Research proposals, written by research grant applicants are distributed by the Divisioon of Research Grants to one of the Study Sessions for review. Of those proposals recommended for approval, each of the Study Section members gives (anonymously) a priority score ranging from 100 (highest) to 500( lowest) and the average determines funding or non-funding. Sometimes a difference of a few points determines "life" or "death" of the proposal. Even though each Study Section member (which usually number between 10 and 20 but may be more) gives a numerical score, only two of the members read any one proposal. For this reason, there is no chance for a proposal to be funded, unless those two readers absolutely wish the proposal to be funded; they are the proposals's only advocates. None of the other member really have the detailed knowledge of the proposal to challenge the opinions of the readers, not to mention that they must all cooperate with one another so that proposals read by other members of the Study Section can be accepted or rejected as recommended by their readers.

The power wielded by the two "readers" can be seen from an NIH-distributed document giving advise to grant applicants: "the author of a project proposal must learn all he can about those who will read his proposal and keep these readers in mind constantly as he writes." Since single copies of this advice could be obtained from the Division of Research Grants, NIH (see linked page lp11a), it represents what is considered acceptable and perhaps even desirable by the NIH authority.

There are two ways of looking at this advice. For the great majority of grant applicants working in an area of research where the foundation concepts have been firmly established and acceptable to all, this advice tells you about a system with which one might find fault but perhaps also live.

It is an altogether different story when the applicant works in an area of science where the foundation is far from being unequivocally established, as it is in the case of cell physiology. It is in this situation that the absolute, unchallengeable power given to the "readers" of the Study Sections, with their long four-year tenure, their high visibility, their privileged tradition of recommending their own successors, as well as their own needs for the same NIH money for their own research now being disputed, that the working of the system takes on a significance of truly alarming nature. It is here that the NIH peer review could fall into the same pitfall of generating an "incestuous buddy system" that "stifles new ideas and scientific breakthroughs" as Representative John B. Conlan had described in regard to the NSF system.
On peer review
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
Si modo's Avatar
Si modo Si modo is offline
In a Garden of Eden
Buckeye by birth; Boilermaker by choice

 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,196
Blog Entries: 1

United_States    
Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC View Post
On peer review
Although that sums up a portion of what is involved for peer-review of grant proposals, it hasn't much to do with peer-review of publications. Oh, and to correct an inaccuracy in the last quote of yours: There is no "National Heart Institute"; it is the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). And, there are no "program managers" at the NIH; they are "program directors".
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Last edited by Si modo; 01-01-2008 at 06:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
JHC's Avatar
JHC JHC is offline
President
a cold, cold woman... and junebug sympathizer

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Florida US
Posts: 10,538

United_States     Wyoming

Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

NSF.gov
Quote:
January 4, 2006

Newly published research results provide evidence that global climate change may have quickly disrupted ocean processes and lead to drastic shifts in environments around the world.

Although the events described unfolded millions of years ago and spanned thousands of years, the researchers, affiliated with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, say they provide one of the few historical analogs for warming-induced changes in the large-scale sea circulation, and thus may help to illuminate the potential long-term impacts of today's climate warming.

Writing in this week's issue of the journal Nature, scientists Flávia Nunes and Richard Norris explain that they probed a four- to seven-degree warming period that occurred some 55 million years ago during the closing stages of the Paleocene and the beginning of the Eocene eras. The unique data set they constructed, based on the chemical makeup of tiny ancient sea creatures, uncovered for the first time evidence of a monumental reversal in the circulation of deep-ocean patterns around the world. The researchers concluded that it was triggered by the global warming the world experienced at the time.

"The earth is a system that can change very rapidly," said Nunes. "Fifty-five million years ago, when the earth was in a period of global warmth, ocean currents rapidly changed direction and this change did not reverse to original conditions for about 20,000 years."

The global warming of 55 million years ago, known as the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), emerged in less than 5,000 years, an instantaneous blip on geological time scales. Fossil records indicate that the PETM set in motion a host of important changes around the globe, ranging from a mass extinction of deep-sea bottom-dwelling marine life to key migrations terrestrial mammal species, likely allowed by warm conditions that opened travel routes not possible under previously colder climates. For example, this period is where scientists find the earliest evidence for horses and primates in North America and Europe.

To obtain their data, Nunes and Norris analyzed carbon isotopes--chemical signatures that reveal a host of information--from the shells of single-celled animals called foraminifera, or "forams." Such organisms exist in a variety of marine environments, and their vast numbers per research sample allow scientists to uncover a range of details about the state of the seas.

"A tiny shell from a sea creature living millions of years ago can tell us so much about past ocean conditions," said Nunes. "We know approximately what the temperature was at the bottom of the ocean. We also have a measure of the nutrient content of the water the creature lived in. And, when we have information from several locations, we can infer the direction of ocean currents."

In the study, the scientists looked at a foram named Nuttalides truempyi from 14 sites around the world in deep-sea sediment cores from Deep Sea Drilling Program (DSDP) and Ocean Drilling Program (ODP). The isotopes were used as nutrient "tracers" to reconstruct changes in deep-ocean circulation through the PETM period. Nutrient levels tell the researchers how long a sample has been near or isolated from the sea surface, thus giving them a way to track the age and path of deep-sea water.

The results indicate that deep-ocean circulation in the Southern Hemisphere abruptly stopped the conveyor belt-like process known as "overturning," in which cold and salty water in the depths exchanges with warm water on the surface. Even as it was virtually shutting down in the south, however, overturning apparently became active in the Northern Hemisphere. The researchers believe this shift drove unusually warm water to the deep sea, likely releasing stores of methane gas that led to further global warming and a massive die-off of deep-sea marine life.

Overturning is a fundamental component of the global climate conditions we know today, said Bil Haq, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s division of ocean sciences, which funded the research. For example, overturning in the modern North Atlantic Ocean is a primary means of drawing heat into the far north Atlantic and keeping temperatures in Europe relatively warmer than conditions in Canada, he said.

Today, "new" deep-water generation does not occur in the Pacific Ocean because of the large amount of freshwater input from the polar regions, which prevents North Pacific waters from becoming dense enough to sink to more than intermediate depths.

In the case of the Paleocene/Eocene, however, deep-water formation was possible in the Pacific Ocean because of global warming-induced changes. The Atlantic Ocean also could have been a significant generator of deep waters during this period.

Modern carbon dioxide input from fossil fuel sources to the earth's surface is approaching the same levels estimated for the PETM period, which raises concerns about future climate and changes in ocean circulation, say the scientists. Thus, they say, the Paleocene/Eocene example suggests that human-produced changes may have lasting effects not only on global climate, but on deep ocean circulation.

"Overturning is very sensitive to surface ocean temperatures and surface ocean salinity," said Norris. "The case described here may be one of the best examples of global warming triggered by the massive release of greenhouse gases. It gives us a perspective on what the long-term impact is likely to be of today's human-caused warming."

-NSF-

Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov
Mario Aguilera, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (858) 534-3624 maguilera@ucsd.edu
Jon Corsiglia, Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc. (202) 787-1644 jcorsiglia@joiscience.org
Nancy Light, IODP-Management International (202) 465-7511 nlight@iodp.org

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of $5.92 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to over 1,700 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 42,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 10,000 new funding awards. The NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
On NSF
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
Si modo's Avatar
Si modo Si modo is offline
In a Garden of Eden
Buckeye by birth; Boilermaker by choice

 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,196
Blog Entries: 1

United_States    
Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC View Post
NSF.gov
On NSF
Yes, as I stated above, the NSF funds scientific investigation of valid scientific questions. If the answer is already known, there will be no funding.
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition
Reply With Quote
  #81 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
JHC's Avatar
JHC JHC is offline
President
a cold, cold woman... and junebug sympathizer

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Florida US
Posts: 10,538

United_States     Wyoming

Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo View Post
As I checked the acknowledgments of one of the articles I posted, authored by some Chinese scientists fron Nanjing University with which many seem to have issues, I found that the research in that publication is funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF - a US scientific funding agency - along with the NIH, one of the largest funders of scientific research in US academia.) Indeed, it is a very prestigious grant for the PI to have. Congrats to him/her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo View Post
Although that sums up a portion of what is involved for peer-review of grant proposals, it hasn't much to do with peer-review of publications.
It is a comment about YOUR use of "peer review" to prop up your assertion that a Chinese scientist couldn't be politically biased.
Quote:
Oh, and to correct an inaccuracy in the last quote of yours: There is no "National Heart Institute"; it is the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). And, there are no "program managers" at the NIH; they are "program directors".
tell it to the hand...man:
Quote:
Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level:The Hidden History of a Fundamental Revolution in BiologyBorn in Nanking, China, Dr. Ling received his biology degree from the National Central University in Chungking. He then took part in a nation-wide competitive examination and won the Boxer Scholarship slot in biology for study in the U.S. He and the other Boxer scholars arrived in the U.S. in November of 1945. In 1948, Dr. Ling received his Ph.D. from the Department of Physiology at the University of Chicago and then continued there for two more years of advanced education as a postdoctoral fellow. Dr. Ling's first job (1950) was that of instructor at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. In 1953, he was appointed assistant professor and, later, associate professor at the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois. In 1957, he accepted the position of senior research scientist at the Basic Research Department of the Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, continuing his research there until 1962. Naturalized in 1961, Dr. Ling carried on full-time research as the director of the Molecular Biology Department of the Pennsylvania Hospital for the next 27 years. In 1988, he moved to Long Island, New York to continue his research and writing at the Damadian Foundation for Basic and Cancer Research (a part of Fonar Corporation) in Melville. Dr. Ling has published over 200 scientific papers and reviews. Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level is his fourth full-length book. He was a co-editor-in-chief (1984-1990) and, since 1990, the sole editor-in-chief of the scientific journal, Physiological Chemistry Physics and Medical NMR.
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
Reply With Quote
  #82 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
Si modo's Avatar
Si modo Si modo is offline
In a Garden of Eden
Buckeye by birth; Boilermaker by choice

 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,196
Blog Entries: 1

United_States    
Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC View Post
It is a comment about YOUR use of "peer review" to prop up your assertion that a Chinese scientist couldn't be politically biased.
tell it to the hand...man:
If Dr. Ling's white paper had been peer-reviewed before he published it on the net, those inaccuracies would have been corrected.
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition
Reply With Quote
  #83 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
JHC's Avatar
JHC JHC is offline
President
a cold, cold woman... and junebug sympathizer

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Florida US
Posts: 10,538

United_States     Wyoming

Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo View Post
Yes, as I stated above, the NSF funds scientific investigation of valid scientific questions. If the answer is already known, there will be no funding.
I wonder if that is what is causing what you perceive to be a political bias. If "general consensus" is irrelevant (as you say), then funding would continue yet the preponderance of funding for global warming is not toward its disproof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo View Post
...
There's that "consensus" word when folks discuss scientific conclusions. It is an irrelevant word to use when referring to scientific conclusions. Kyoto is political and media and propaganda outlets have more influence.
...
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
Reply With Quote
  #84 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
JHC's Avatar
JHC JHC is offline
President
a cold, cold woman... and junebug sympathizer

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Florida US
Posts: 10,538

United_States     Wyoming

Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo View Post
If Dr. Ling's white paper had been peer-reviewed before he published it on the net, those inaccuracies would have been corrected.
What white paper?
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
Reply With Quote
  #85 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
Si modo's Avatar
Si modo Si modo is offline
In a Garden of Eden
Buckeye by birth; Boilermaker by choice

 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,196
Blog Entries: 1

United_States    
Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC View Post
I wonder if that is what is causing what you perceive to be a political bias. If "general consensus" is irrelevant (as you say), then funding would continue yet the preponderance of funding for global warming is not toward its disproof.
Then you are not paying attention. Funding of science depends on consensus (for lack of a better word) on what is a valid scientific investigation into a valid scientific question, since money is limited. As there is continued funding into the question of the causes, valid models, etc. associated with the climate, it looks like there is still a scientific question to be answered and that valid scientific question is not determined by "consensus", rather it is determined by data.
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition
Reply With Quote
  #86 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
Si modo's Avatar
Si modo Si modo is offline
In a Garden of Eden
Buckeye by birth; Boilermaker by choice

 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,196
Blog Entries: 1

United_States    
Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC View Post
What white paper?
It is a general term for a non peer-reviewed publication on the net or distributed at a conference/meeting. It is not peer-reviewed. Was Dr. Ling's text that you posted peer-reviewed?
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition
Reply With Quote
  #87 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
JHC's Avatar
JHC JHC is offline
President
a cold, cold woman... and junebug sympathizer

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Florida US
Posts: 10,538

United_States     Wyoming

Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

I'm sure there are still questions but if the funding is going less and less toward disproving global warming, then by your own definition, this flawless system is indicating that the data supports the general consensus and not the relatively smaller number of scientists who disagree.
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
Reply With Quote
  #88 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
JHC's Avatar
JHC JHC is offline
President
a cold, cold woman... and junebug sympathizer

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Florida US
Posts: 10,538

United_States     Wyoming

Re: The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo View Post
It is a general term for a non peer-reviewed publication on the net or distributed at a conference/meeting. It is not peer-reviewed. Was Dr. Ling's text that you posted peer-reviewed?
Perhaps you feel qualified to participate in a peer review of Dr. Ling's opinion about peer review.
Perhaps I am by the same measure, qualified to participate in a peer review of your opinion about peer review.
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
Reply With Quote
  #89 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2008
Si modo's Avatar